I wouldn't recommend SnB-E simply because it's expensive, and that BP's performance needs are mostly gaming-related, and that Battlefield 3 and Skyrim will be more GPU-limited than CPU (all you need is a fast enough quad-core chip). If the nightmarish prices of Sandy Bridge-E I'm seeing at the moment turn out to be true, BP will be spending about 1200€ on the upgrade.

That's what I thought. I think it's worth switching the CPU. You WILL get a performance boost in some areas, regardless of your platform. It really just depends on what's most important to you, but I'm sure you realize all of this.

I hope it all works out whatever you decide to do. Have you made a decision?

Thanks Bta and LordJummy. To be honest I haven't even checked on what the prices on SB-E would be... and that's one of the reasons I want to wait before buying the system.
I'll be trying out swapping the laptop Q9450 with my desktop's E8400, and oc'ing the quad.

From what I have seen so far, SB-E prices should be as follows for a 4 core setup:

i7 38XX should be around the price of a 2600K, perhaps even ~20$ cheaper
Motherboard should be roughly double that of Z68
RAM will be about the same

So if prices aren't too bad, you'd be paying 100~120 euros for the X79 chipset (quad-channel RAM, PCI-E lanes etc). I think it is worth it for an enthusiast like BP who doesn't have money problems and who keeps her CPUs for a very long time. Also don't forget that IB-E will come out in the distant future, with rumors of 8-core processors. This means that in many years, a CPU upgrade to a SB-E 6 core perhaps or an IB-E one etc would be cheaper and POSSIBLE. X79 is in beginning of line, while once IB comes out, LGA 1155 will stop innovating and be stuck at 4 cores that probably won't be faster than an LGA 2011 quad

That logic is astonishingly bad. Who cares about losing 200-600MHz when you can 2 fully functioning cores capable of running additional threads that new games offer? Not to mention the increased usability of multitasking in day-to-day tasks. If the better CPU is readily available, USE IT. Who cares if you need to spend 30-45 minutes swapping CPU's around? If the performance gain is substantial (which it is) then it's definitely worth it...

Click to expand...

It is not about logic... ive done it. For games i went from a E8500 at 4.1Ghz to an Q9650 at 3.8 with very little measurable or noticeable difference in FPS with 2x GTX260 in SLI.

When I upgraded to a i750, however, huge boost way more usage out of the cards. That is not logic, that is experience. My logic was the same as yours, which is why i made that trade in the first place. @ OP If you dont believe me BP, see for yourself - do it and post back, its not gonna hurt anything.

It is not about logic... ive done it. For games i went from a E8500 at 4.1Ghz to an Q9650 at 3.8 with very little measurable or noticeable difference in FPS with 2x GTX260 in SLI.

When I upgraded to a i750, however, huge boost way more usage out of the cards. That is not logic, that is experience. My logic was the same as yours, which is why i made that trade in the first place. @ OP If you dont believe me BP, see for yourself - do it and post back, its not gonna hurt anything.

Click to expand...

and you are talking about WHAT games and HOW long ago
I am gonna pick that apart here to make a point
a: GTX 260's ARE OLD (dx10 is bad at mulithreaded rendering )
b: a Q9650 is not much of a upgrade (socket 775 is old and people should just it let die )
c: pcie 1.1 ?

Since I'm not going to buy a new motherboard, ram and cpu exactly on the date of release of SB-E I think I'll go for the other suggestion of swapping cpu's (and release the kraken later ).

It won't make a difference for me on the laptop whether I have the Q9450 or the E8400 installed. (Since I had 2 laptop gpu's die on me I have up intensive gaming and now am using it only for mild games, old games and for browsing/office work.)

But I don't want to go through the trouble of reinstalling both cpu's, and reinstalling both operating systems, backing up and restoring stuff etc etc... if I don't get a visible performance increase on the desktop worth taking the trouble for a couple of months.

I wouldn't mind the laptop going slower with the E8400. The bios is locked and I can't oc the laptop (though I do not want to).

If the Q9450 would make a visible performance increase on the desktop, my plan would be to use it for a month or so on the desktop, overclocking it (hmmm would it reach 4Ghz on air like the E8400?) Then when sufficient reviews are out on the performance of SB-E I'll decide which cpu, motherboard, ram (and also cooler) to buy.

Click to expand...

There will be a significant increase in performance in multithreaded games. Hell, even games without multithreading will likely see an increase just because the drivers can benefit from more cores on many systems.

if you got money to burn then install the q9450 ... but a 2500k will still trounce it
you should not need todo a os reinstall if you are changing the motherboard and cpu ( well at least on a windows 7) system
a q9450 will *should* do 4ghz with some effort ( its gonna draw mad power and get hot as a bitch in heat but it should do it )
shoot for something more sane like 3.2 or so it really won't matter much anyway a q9450 is still pretty slow even at 4ghz
you can try for 4 if you got good cooling and are brave about voltage

Click to expand...

The Q9450 won't cost her a dime. She already has it in her laptop. Completely free upgrade.

I wouldn't recommend SnB-E simply because it's expensive, and that BP's performance needs are mostly gaming-related, and that Battlefield 3 and Skyrim will be more GPU-limited than CPU (all you need is a fast enough quad-core chip). If the nightmarish prices of Sandy Bridge-E I'm seeing at the moment turn out to be true, BP will be spending about 1200€ on the upgrade.

i5-2500K + 120€ Z68 board + 50€ 8GB DDR3-1600 is the way forward.

Click to expand...

Unless she want's a 6 core, so she can wait another 4-5 years before she upgrades platforms again. That would be my path (and actually is the path I'm on. This 980X will be with me for a while yet.). Going with a 2500k setup does not buy her that longevity. If she is going to only go with a quad, at least recommend one with hyperthreading to buy a little extra longevity.

It is not about logic... ive done it. For games i went from a E8500 at 4.1Ghz to an Q9650 at 3.8 with very little measurable or noticeable difference in FPS with 2x GTX260 in SLI.

When I upgraded to a i750, however, huge boost way more usage out of the cards. That is not logic, that is experience. My logic was the same as yours, which is why i made that trade in the first place. @ OP If you dont believe me BP, see for yourself - do it and post back, its not gonna hurt anything.

Unless she want's a 6 core, so she can wait another 4-5 years before she upgrades platforms again. That would be my path (and actually is the path I'm on. This 980X will be with me for a while yet.). Going with a 2500k setup does not buy her that longevity. If she is going to only go with a quad, at least recommend one with hyperthreading to buy a little extra longevity.

Click to expand...

This is what makes LGA 2011 so attractive. LGA 1155's best CPU will be a IB quad with at most the CPU power of the LGA 2011 SB-E quad. LGA 2011's best CPU is unknown but it is at least an IB-E hexa, perhaps even an octo with 8 cores perhaps even available at launch under Xeon.

That and the insane memory bandwidth will make sure that it is enough for a long time, and the PCI-E lanes will makes sure that the best card of even 2 or 3 generations forward will be able to run.

Another thing that sells ME but won't affect BP much is the 8 DIMM availability. I will have 8x 4GB RAM for sure

However, I would probably go 4-core LGA 2011, as I'm thinking the hexa core will lose its value much faster than the 4-core, and so far, the quad would be better bang/buck. I would only consider the hexa if it is priced at 500 or below

Thanks Bta and LordJummy. To be honest I haven't even checked on what the prices on SB-E would be... and that's one of the reasons I want to wait before buying the system.
I'll be trying out swapping the laptop Q9450 with my desktop's E8400, and oc'ing the quad.

I'm looking forward to Skyrim (but not BF3 at all )

Click to expand...

Even if the laptop uses desktop LGA775 processor, I'm not sure if it has the integrated heatspreader (IHS). Laptop designers use heat pipes to make direct contact with the dies, with no IHS in the way. A Q9450 with IHS removed could be very fragile (there are two dies on one chip).

Wait for SB-E to release, and sniff around for price drops on a 2500k and motherboard. DDR3 is fairly cheap. Your 5970 will carry you through for a while, and when you get enough cash you can replace it when it's needed.

I'm not sure if it has the integrated heatspreader (IHS). Laptop designers use heat pipes to make direct contact with the dies, with no IHS in the way. A Q9450 with IHS removed could be very fragile (there are two dies on one chip).

Click to expand...

I replaced the TIM paste of the Q9450 a couple of months ago. It does have an IHS thankfully.

and you are talking about WHAT games and HOW long ago
I am gonna pick that apart here to make a point
a: GTX 260's ARE OLD (dx10 is bad at mulithreaded rendering )
b: a Q9650 is not much of a upgrade (socket 775 is old and people should just it let die )
c: pcie 1.1 ?

Click to expand...

I'm talking about the switch to the q9450 , you're talking about the general upgrade, which if you read, ive been stating 2500K and a nice cheap mobo with some DDr3 is the way to go.

a: GTX 260's in SLI require CPU and platform input to make them run well. The coding of the game is what determines how well it scales with cores not the DX version. ex. Supreme commander. No its not the same card and yes it will be different but the comparison is still somewhat helpful.

"There were some issues observed with the game that lead us to believe Alice was either released too early, or was designed for consoles first and then ported to the PC. The first issue we ran into was an FPS limitation that only allowed the frame rates to vary from 22 to 31FPS. These are essentially the target frame rates for consoles, and it is unfortunate to see a game released for the PC with frame rates below 60FPS. Additionally, there is no option to disable Vsync from within the in-game menu, which makes the process hard for those with only minimal knowledge on how to do so through the game's .ini file."

You definitely need a new CPU soon - but see if that helps your game. Also the game lacks crossfire support (as per that same source), but you still should be more than fine even with half of that 5970.

Well, I tried that tweak on the laptop (Q9450, 4GB RAM & 8800M GTX @ 1920x1200) and it worked. I started getting fps in the 50's, but the game did stutter a bit..

Now I'm at home and am currently testing it out on the desktop (E8400 @ 4Ghz, 4GB RAM & 5970 @2560x1440) and this fix didn't work. My max fps was still 30/31. Does this fix work only on Nvidia and not AMD cards?

What's worse is that on the desktop (with or without the fix) my minimum fps drop to 12

So I changed resolution to 1920x1080.
The game definitely runs better but it hurts my eyes. Max fps is 30 and the minimum is in the 20's ugghh. This is confusing. My laptop at a higher res of 1920x1200 and using a much much worse card than the 5970 always keeps over 30fps.

I know my E8400 is old and only dual core but please tell me it's just this game? Before Alice I played Dirt 3 at 2560x1440 with most settings maxed and it was as smooth as butter?

Well, I tried that tweak on the laptop (Q9450, 4GB RAM & 8800M GTX @ 1920x1200) and it worked. I started getting fps in the 50's, but the game did stutter a bit..

Now I'm at home and am currently testing it out on the desktop (E8400 @ 4Ghz, 4GB RAM & 5970 @2560x1440) and this fix didn't work. My max fps was still 30/31. Does this fix work only on Nvidia and not AMD cards?

What's worse is that on the desktop (with or without the fix) my minimum fps drop to 12

So I changed resolution to 1920x1080.
The game definitely runs better but it hurts my eyes. Max fps is 30 and the minimum is in the 20's ugghh. This is confusing. My laptop at a higher res of 1920x1200 and using a much much worse card than the 5970 always keeps over 30fps.

I know my E8400 is old and only dual core but please tell me it's just this game? Before Alice I played Dirt 3 at 2560x1440 with most settings maxed and it was as smooth as butter?

In my recent chat with BP, I was rather leaning towards for her to go the 2500K route. We mainly had a discussion about the more modern architectures and in I explained it to her that with the "northbridge on the cpu" would give her better minimum fps rates.

Yup you're right. I didn't have a PhysX option on the desktop with the AMD card. So that's not the reason for my low fps.

Now I'm on the laptop, and I just checked and found that I had been playing with PhysX on high on the laptop. And getting better fps @1920x1200 with one 8800M GTX with 4GB ram and Q9450 than I get @ 1920x1080 on 5970 with 4GB ram and E8400 4Ghz and no physx option available.

Anyway, I'm just hoping it's just this one game.
I'll see how it all goes when I get Skyrim on 11-11-11 and proceed from there

Yup you're right. I didn't have a PhysX option on the desktop with the AMD card. So that's not the reason for my low fps.

Now I'm on the laptop, and I just checked and found that I had been playing with PhysX on high on the laptop. And getting better fps @1920x1200 with one 8800M GTX with 4GB ram and Q9450 than I get @ 1920x1080 on 5970 with 4GB ram and E8400 4Ghz and no physx option available.

Anyway, I'm just hoping it's just this one game.
I'll see how it all goes when I get Skyrim on 11-11-11 and proceed from there